GUIA NAJERA ISON, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR. AND JULITA M. CALDERON, FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB), REPRESENTED BY AT…
DIMARANAN-VIDAL, J.:
THE FACTS
Petitioner was a Medical Officer VI of the Quezon City Health Department[5] when criminal and administrative complaints docketed as OMB-0-01-0318 for Falsification of Official Documents and the Use of Falsified Documents penalized under Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, and OMB-ADM-0-01-0219 for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct under Rule IV, Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[6], respectively, were filed against her. The said complaints were initiated by Atty. MELCHOR ARTHUR H. CARANDANG, Graft Investigation Officer II, and Chief, Legal Monitoring and Prosecution Division, representing the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman.[7] The pertinent portion of the aforesaid complaints state that:
x x x
- Dr. Ison, as member of the Ozone Task Force was given authority to render overtime services for the period starting March 23 to August 31, 1996. Her Daily Time Records for the subject months, which reflected overtime up to about 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. and meetings attended, were duly signed by her and the Chief of the Division, Dr. Teresita T. Novera, Medical Officer VI;
- In order to claim higher overtime pay for the subject months, Dr. Ison prepared another set of Daily Time Records, the entries of which are falsified to make it appear that she rendered overtime services regularly until eleven in the evening (11:00 p.m.); and
- The wrongful acts of respondent Ison evidently manifest her disposition to commit falsehood and defraud the government, and allowed her to obtain overtime pay amounting to P11,965.00 for the subject period.
x x x[8]
In denying the abovementioned charges, Petitioner averred the following:
x x x
a. all my regular time records were prepared by the Administrative Division based on a logbook which all City Health personnel sign when they report for work and when they leave for each day and I sign these time records before they are countersigned by my superior;
b. that all my overtime time records were prepared by the personnel assigned to prepare these overtime time record for the Task Force Ozone after the Mayor has approved the request that those who rendered overtime for the Task Force be allowed to receive overtime pay; that only the allowed number of hours for overtime was approved by the Fiscal Control Unit, the accounting and city auditor; that in truth I have rendered overtime work over and above what was reflected in my overtime time records and in fact I have rendered overtime work for the Ozone incident even after August 31, 1996 and for which I was not paid overtime pay; Dr. Fortun can attest to this fact; that I reserve the right to submit additional factual evidence on this matter as the inadequate time allowed for me to submit this counter-affidavit has prevented me to collate all the material facts because I am obligated to render my regular work everyday;
6. That it is important to state at this point that I have rendered dedicated service to the Quezon City Government and that even in the past I have rendered service beyond the time required but I never collected overtime pay; that the General Payroll submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman by the City Auditor of Quezon City will attest to the fact that there were other Health Personnel who rendered the same amount of overtime that I was credited with and which will attest to the fact that we have rendered valid overtime, the duration of which is justifiable and these people whose names appear in the General Payroll are the best witnesses who can validate my statement and not the coward and self-centered anonymous complainants who do not want to be identified.
x x x[9]
On 7 January 2003, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dismissing the criminal charges, supra, filed against the Petitioner for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause.[10]
However, with respect to the Administrative aspect of the complaint, supra, the Ombudsman found Petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, the dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds respondent Dr. GUIA NAJERA ISON of the Quezon City Health Department, guilty of Dishonesty and pursuant to the aforestated provision of the law, the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE is hereby imposed.
The Mayor of Quezon City is hereby directed to implement this decision upon finality hereof.
SO ORDERED.[11]
On 18 March 2003, the subsequent motion for reconsideration of the Petitioner was denied by the Ombudsman.[12]
On 27 March 2003, JULITA M.CALDERON, the Graft Investigation Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman, issued a Memorandum[13] recommending the approval of the aforesaid denial of the motion for reconsideration.
THE ISSUES
Aggrieved, Petitioner filed instant petition with the principal argument that the dismissal of the criminal charges against her warrants her exoneration from the corresponding administrative case considering that both cases arose from the same set of facts.[14]
In addition, Petitioner contends that the challenged Decision is not supported by relevant or substantial evidence and is based on mere assumptions, conjectures and surmises.[15]
OUR RULING
We find the petition bereft of merit.
Relevant to the main argument advanced by the Petitioner, is the ruling of the Supreme Court in De la Cruz vs. Department of Education, Culture and Sports- Cordillera Administrative Region[16], thus:
Dismissal of the criminal case does not foreclose administrative action involving the same facts. For while proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases, substantial evidence suffices in administrative proceedings, which merely requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. (Underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar, the Ombudsman Resolution in OMB-0-01-0318 dated 16 May 2002 shows that the criminal case filed against the Petitioner was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence. The fallo thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is recommended that the case be, as it is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause that the respondent committed Article 171 in relation to 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO RESOLVED. (Underscoring supplied)[17]
Insufficiency of Evidence means that the evidence presented is not adequate or strong enough to prove or support a finding of something[18], which, in the case at bar, is the guilt of Petitioner for committing the crime of Falsification under Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
In other words, insufficiency of evidence does not mean that a crime was not actually committed. Simply stated, it signifies that the amount of evidence presented cannot sustain the conviction of the accused for the crime charged.
Viewed in the light of the foregoing factual and legal circumstances, the Petitioner’s stance that the dismissal of her criminal case exonerates her from the corresponding administrative liability is misplaced. Definitely, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to administrative prosecution or vice versa.[19] Parenthetically, the investigation of the criminal case and the inquiry into the administrative charges involving the same act or omission are entirely different proceedings.[20]
Petitioner contends that the assailed Decision was based on conjectures and surmises and not on the evidence presented.[21]
Petitioner’s contention does not hold water.
After carefully reviewing the evidentiary record, We find the assailed Decision to be supported by substantial evidence.
As earlier mentioned, substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It connotes such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[22]
In proving Petitioner’s guilt, the following documentary evidence were considered:
- Copies of the Daily Time Records (DTR’s) of Dr. Ison for the period March-August 1996;
- Copies of the Daily Time Records for the same period which were altered and falsified in order to claim higher overtime pay; and
- Copies of the general payroll schedule which shows that Dr. Ison had actually collected the overtime pay based on falsified entries in her DTR’s. [23]
It bears stressing that Petitioner, as correctly observed by the Ombudsman, miserably failed to explain the existence of the two (2) sets of daily time records (DTR). Likewise, she never advanced an explanation on the existence of alterations on the second set of documents which were deliberately done to have a higher overtime pay.
Significantly, We find the findings and observation of the Ombudsman in this line as sound, thus:
Surprisingly, respondent [herein Petitioner] never disown her signatures on those second set of documents which by logic and common sense will create the indubitable conclusion that she is the author thereof. And even if we assumed that she did not prepare the questioned documents but the personnel assigned for the Task Force Ozone as she claimed, still the responsibility of determining whether the entries therein are correct or not remains with her for she is the one who stood to benefit by the alterations. x x x Indeed, the respondent has failed to convince this Office that a person other than herself made the alterations on the questioned daily time records. Her denial carries no evidentiary weight. x x x [24]
In Salvador vs. Desierto[25], the Supreme Court tersely ruled that:
As long as substantial evidence support the Ombudsman ruling, his decision will not be overturned.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The challenged Decision, Order and Memorandum of the Ombudsman are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
De Los Santos and Lampas-Peralta, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 36-53
[2] Rollo, pp. 54-60
[3] Rollo, pp. 79-83
[4] Rollo, pp. 84-86
[5] Rollo, page 39
[6] Rollo, page 40
[7] Rollo, page 40
[8] Rollo, page 94
[9] Rollo, page 56
[10] Rollo, pp 87-93
[11] Rollo, page 59
[12] Rollo, pp 79-83
[13] Rollo, pp 84-86
[14] Rollo, page 43
[15] Rollo, pp 42-43
[16] 420 SCRA 113
[17] Rollo, page 92
[18] Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition
[19] Office of the Court Administrator vs. Enriquez, 218 SCRA 1
[20] Ibid
[21] Rollo, pp 41-42
[22] Ormos Sugar Co, Inc. vs. OSCO Workers Fraternity Labor Union, et al., GR No. L-15826, 23 January 1961
[23] Rollo, page 55
[24] Rollo, page 58
[25] 420 SCRA 76